August 31, 2004

“The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect ‘domestic security.’ Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent.”

That's a quote from United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern Dist. of Michigan et al, a 1972 Supreme Court decision. It is also, apparently, something whose release would be dangerous to our national security, since the Justice Department tried to redact it out of a letter written by the ACLU. Of course, the decision in its entirety has been publicly available since it was reached in 1972 , so it's a bit late for the government to try to squelch it.

Ten special bonus points to anyone who can give me a good reason why the publication of this quote is dangerous to national security. I'd offer ten more bonus points to anyone who can tell me why quotes like this should not be blocked, and ten more to anyone who can tell me why trying to make Supreme Court decisions inaccessible is a bad idea, but even though these are just imaginary bonus points, I don't think I could come up with enough of them to meet the demand.

I will always hold a degree of respect for Rudy Guiliani for the courage he displayed in the days after 9/11. He was a true Hero, and many New Yorkers' opinion of him changed overnight, much to the shock of those who had truly despised him just the day before.

That's why I was sincerely saddened to watch his speech last night. I was expecting to be inspired or, at least, impressed, but in less than half an hour Rudy went from hero to partisan hack in my esteem. This is all the sadder, because although I loathed him before 9/11, I never thought of him as merely a mouthpiece for the party.

Rudy's speech---in stark contrast to McCain's, which (although I disagree with much of it) was measured and respectful---was a laundry list of cheapshots, factual errors, jokes that just died, and outright hackery.

Here's a sample of the "you-just-made-that-shit-up" nonsense he was spewing:

Today's article by William Saletan in Slate, Being There, demonstrates exactly why the SwiftVets are dangerous to Bush, and why, immediately after the convention, he should specifically single them out as wrong and unhelpful:

For the past month, a group of veterans funded by a Bush campaign contributor and advised by a Bush campaign lawyer has attacked the story of John Kerry's heroism in Vietnam. They have argued, contrary to all known contemporaneous records, that Kerry was too brutal in a counterattack that earned him the Silver Star, and that he survived only mines, not bullets, when he rescued a fellow serviceman from a river. President Bush, who joined the National Guard as a young man to avoid Vietnam, has been challenged to denounce the group's charges. He has refused.

Now the Republican National Convention is showcasing Bush's own heroic moment. As John McCain put it last night: "I knew my confidence was well placed when I watched him stand on the rubble of the World Trade Center with his arm around a hero of September 11 and, in our moment of mourning and anger, strengthen our unity and our resolve by promising to right this terrible wrong and to stand up and fight for the values we hold dear."

Pardon me for asking, but where exactly is the heroism in this story? Where, indeed, is the heroism in anything Bush has done before 9/11 or since?

Nine-tens of battle is choosing the right ground -- of framing the right question. The SwiftVets, aided and encouraged by folks who should know better, have spent millions framing the wrong question: Is he a hero? I don't doubt that Kerry's has had trouble (and maybe can't) answer this question. That's bad. But, worse for Bush, I know that he has an answer to this question: his answer is "no." Smart, competent, bold, resolute -- perhaps. Personally brave? No. (At least, we've never seen it.)

Bush needs to put the SwiftVets behind him like they never were there. He's gotten some mileage out of them, sure. (At some cost: whether it's Vietnam-era war protestors or Swifties, I don't like to see folks spit on another's military service -- literally or figuratively. It's bad for the Republic.*) But the needle is about to swing the other direction. It's time to jettison the SwiftVets, and leave Col. Kurtz and crew alone and seething in their huts, far, far up the river.

UPDATE: In comments, Edward asks if I expect folks to start questioning Bush's bravery. No, I don't, per se. (Though Saletan did, and I expect other lefty pundits will.) But, being frequent witness to petty disputes (I'm a trial lawyer for large corporations, see), I can tell you that the human mind seems to abhor a single standard unfairly applied. If your opponent's courage is questioned, your courage is put on the line as well -- even where you're not necessarily the one doing the questioning.

In part, the issue boils down to: How will the story continue, if it is allowed to do so? We've pretty much heard whatever truth the Swifties may have. They've shot their wad, and their successive firings are each less impressive than the last. (BTW, I agree with Pejman, who observed on Redstate.org that the Swifties should have led with Kerry's far-more-damning '71 testimony.) The "Bush is behind it all" story is simmering, and, with the right event, may boil up. But far more appealing to the chattering classes is the meta-narrative revealed in Saletan's piece. That's the story that says something relevant about Kerry (he may have lied, but he served) at the same time it says something relevant about Bush (he may have lied, but he didn't serve). Once folks stop looking at Kerry in Vietnam, and start looking at Kerry and Bush in the Vietnam era, Kerry wins the beauty contest -- at least on this issue. In attacking Kerry's flaws, the SwiftVet's inadvertently draw attention to Bush's flaws as well. The sword is double edged -- though it may not seem to be at first. (Bush knew it was double edged fairly early -- see, e.g., his praise for Kerry's service and humility regarding his own.)

von

*On NPR this morning, I learned that I apparently have the temperment of a moderate, middle-aged Republican woman from a swing state.

In an earlier post about the clandestine changes the Bush administration is making to federal regulations, bypassing Congressional oversight, under the cover of war, one reader noted in response to the list of controversial shifts:

More to the point, this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that should have been expected from GWB in 2000 and up to Sept 20, 2001.

I've encountered arguments like this before. They seem to imply the nation got what they voted for, even if all of them didn't bother to read the fine print. However, given the controversial way Bush was elected, with at least one clear indicator of what the nation wanted (or didn't want) found in the popular vote disparity, the assertion that Bush is simply giving the people what they want is beyond disengenuous.

Now, the moderates in the GOP, like Senator Collins from Maine who appeared on PBS last night, will tell you they're working to curb the more extremist ideas in the party. This is meant to make moderates worry less about those troublesome parts of the GOP platform. Should they fail to curb them, however, here's what you can expect in the next four years: Some of the fine print of the GOP platform (pdf file).

That was my rather belated reaction to the secondhand recounting of whatever it was that Mary Anne Marsh said last week on Hannity and Colmes. I say secondhand because I originally got it from Jeff Goldstein: for that matter, the show hasn't posted a transcript. Jay Nordlinger noted it later on: no transcript there, either, so for all I know there's a context* issue.

I'll admit it: I'm a sucker. My dislike of the Bush administration's policies -- for the record, I like Bush the man -- is being tempered by the fact that I am, at heart, a liberal Republican. It's early yet, but I can't help but notice that the Republicans are working hard to regain my vote. By Rovian design, no doubt.

I've said -- twice now -- that Bush has lost my vote. In this quiet moment, however, I'll admit that I'm not sure of myself. (Damn you, Rove!) I'll wait to hear Bush's speech (and the speeches before and the speeches on the campaign trail thereafter). I keep on trying to find a reason to vote for him.

Sad? (I mean, he'll never be my guy.) Maybe. But doing right by the Republic shouldn't be an easy thing.

August 30, 2004

In an effort to provide counterprogramming for the Republican National Convention, I will be writing a short series of posts on what I take to be the most important reasons not to vote for Bush. Three preliminary notes:

First, I am not reflexively anti-Republican. Until about a year ago, of all the Presidential candidates I've supported over the years, the one I was most excited about was a Republican (Anderson, 1980.) I try not to be reflexively anti-Bush, though he has long since worn out the benefit of the doubt that I gave him after the decision in Bush v. Gore, and again after 9/11. There are, I think, very good reasons to oppose him; thus this post.

Second, I describe myself as voting against Bush for a reason. I think John Kerry will make a perfectly good President. Nonetheless, he was not my first (or second, or third) choice in the Democratic primaries, and if he was running against someone else who I thought would make a perfectly good President, I might have to think seriously about who to vote for. But since, in my judgment, Bush has not been anywhere near a perfectly good President, I have no such difficult choice to make.

Third, I do not hold Bush responsible for every silly thing that anyone in his administration has ever said. But I do hold him responsible for his administration's policies, and also for his response to things that members of his administration do, whether or not he himself has ever spoken about the topics in question. He is responsible for hiring and firing his people; for making sure that they do the job he wants them to do; and for exercising oversight over them. The buck stops with him.

So, at the start, Pericles strides forward; and why? To endorse Nicias, of course. (You on the right: you think Nicias a misnomer, a slur. See Iraq and the Peace of Nicias that is being wrought there -- yes, even now.)

History repeats itself, despite its lessons.

It's a good speech, but, at the beginning, the delivery is a bit off-kilter. McCain's uncertain, not quite ready for the moment. And, then, ....

Now that she's blogged about it herself, on behalf of the blogosphere let me one of the first to congratulate Rivka on her upcoming blessed event. Being Rivka, she's written something interesting on pregnancy and expectations; and, for the record, surely I didn't use the actual word 'jerk'. I think.

*As you might have guessed, the poor woman was a gaming widow in the past, and may end up being one again in the future; her Significant Otter was in my last campaign... right, I'm game geeking and nobody cares.

An estimated 500,000 people gathered in lower Manhattan yesterday to participate in the largest Focus Group the city's seen since 1982's antinuclear rally in Central Park (with some saying even more participants showed up yesterday).

The messages they hoped to convey ran the gamut from A to Z (with each at least partially geard toward stopping W). Here are a few of the more memorable comments participants made:

From totally misguided,

Support the Iraqi Resistance. US Troops out of the Middle East

to faithful, but somewhat deluded

Remember if Gore had been president, the Twin Towers would still be standing.